Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat weblog has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech and privacy/confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is David Brophy, Birgit Clark, Merpel, Jeremy Phillips, Eleonora Rosati, Darren Smyth, Annsley Merelle Ward and Neil J. Wilkof. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate in our community. You can email the Kats here

For the half-year to 30 June 2015, the IPKat's regular team is supplemented by contributions from guest bloggers Suleman Ali, Tom Ohta and Valentina Torelli.

Regular round-ups of the previous week's blogposts are kindly compiled by Alberto Bellan.

The Office's views on the Aerotel/Macrossan decision, as well as the lesser Patent Office decisions of John Lahiri Khan’s Appn (BL O/356/06) and Rockwell FirstPoint Contact’s Appn (BL O/355/06) have now found their way into the Manual relating to section 1 of the Patents Act.

For those uninitiated, the Manual is the 'bible' for patent examiners, and tells them how to deal with (pretty much) anything that might come their way. Although not legally binding, it is nonetheless important in that it establishes how patent applications are generally dealt with, and will be the first place an examiner looks when he or she want to back up their arguments.

The revised Manual now gives a strong indication of the new approach to be taken regarding excluded inventions under Section 1(2). The now well-known four step test approved in Aerotel/Macrossan is given particular prominence. The Patent Office consider that the fourth step (to check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature) is "to be used only when an application has passed the three previous steps" (see point 1.10.1). This has been confirmed by the Office in recent decisions such as Khan's Appn.

As has been mentioned in previous IPKat commentary here, it seems unlikely that the fourth step will ever be used in practice. For practitioners in particular, it does not therefore seem to be of much use as a "get out of jail" card for patent applications that would otherwise be within one or more of the excluded areas.

On another note, the CIPA Journal for January 2007 has now arrived. A particular point to note is a piece by David Barford (Deputy Director of the UK Patent Office) on the Office's Opinions service under section 74A. He reckons that the service has done quite well, all considering, and 34 requests so far is not bad going. He also gives some useful pointers on how to go about requesting an opinion.

Another point to note is that summaries of recent Patent Office decisions and opinions have this month been provided by the present author. Any praise or complaints regarding quantity or quality may be addressed to him via the comments facility below. Merpel says: "Don't let it get to your head. You're not a Fellow yet, merely an Associate, no matter what some people might think".

The IPKat's sidebar contents

Want to complain?If you feel that you have been unfairly prevented from posting a comment on one of this weblog's features, here's what you can do about it

The IPKat's cousins: some IP-friendly blogs for youThe IPKat lists his 'family' of IP blogs, some of which focus on specific rights, geographical zones, markets or interests

How many page-views?See how many times the pages of the IPKat weblog have been purr-viewed

The Kat that tweetsToo short to blog? Some news and views are still worth airing, thanks to Twitter

Want to receive the IPKat weblog by email?You can get each post, or a digest, sent direct to your favourite mailbox

Not just any old IPKatEvery so often, this feline creeps into the limelight

The IPKat's RSS feeding arrangementsFeedburner and all those other things ...

What you've been sayingHere are the most recent readers' comments on the IPKat's posts

The IPKat's Greatest Hits!Here are the five posts on the IPKat's weblog that have received the most attention from readers over the past 30 days

Has the Kat got your tongue?Some translation facilities for readers whose first language is not English, or who are just plain masochistic

Creative Commons licenceYou too can make use of this blog's contents, if you follow the rules

The IPKat ArchiveAncient posts, going back to June 2003

Want to complain?

If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation -- essentially that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should be relevant to the blogpost on which they purport to comment.

If you feel that your comment should have been moderated, please email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com and let him know, since it may be that your comment has been misdirected into the Blogger software's Spam file.

In the event that there has been no software malfunction and that your post has been rejected, if you want to appeal against this decision please contact either (i) Dr Danny Friedmann of theIP Dragonweblog (ipdragon@gmail.com) or (ii) Professor Dennis Crouch of the Patently-O weblog (dcrouch@patentlyo.com). Danny or Dennis will review your complaint, preserving the confidentiality of your identity and will let both you and us know whether your complaint is justified.

If your complaint relates to bias or distortion, the IPKat suggests that you contact him initially, bearing in mind that he and Merpel are generally willing to host pieces by guest contributors even when their opinions are at odds with those of this blog's contributors.